211 lines
4.5 KiB
Markdown
211 lines
4.5 KiB
Markdown
# Loss Functions
|
|
|
|
## MSELoss | AKA L2
|
|
|
|
$$
|
|
MSE(\vec{\bar{y}}, \vec{y}) = \begin{bmatrix}
|
|
(\bar{y}_1 - y_1)^2 \\
|
|
(\bar{y}_2 - y_2)^2 \\
|
|
... \\
|
|
(\bar{y}_n - y_n)^2 \\
|
|
\end{bmatrix}^T
|
|
$$
|
|
|
|
Though, it can be reduced to a **scalar** by making
|
|
either the `sum` of all the values, or the `mean`.
|
|
|
|
## L1Loss
|
|
|
|
This measures the **M**ean **A**bsolute **E**rror
|
|
|
|
$$
|
|
L1(\vec{\bar{y}}, \vec{y}) = \begin{bmatrix}
|
|
|\bar{y}_1 - y_1| \\
|
|
|\bar{y}_2 - y_2| \\
|
|
... \\
|
|
|\bar{y}_n - y_n| \\
|
|
\end{bmatrix}^T
|
|
$$
|
|
|
|
This is more **robust against outliers** as their
|
|
value is not **squared**.
|
|
|
|
However this is not ***differentiable*** towards
|
|
**small values**, thus the existance of
|
|
[SmoothL1Loss](#smoothl1loss--aka-huber-loss)
|
|
|
|
As [MSELoss](#mseloss--aka-l2), it can be reduces into
|
|
a **scalar**
|
|
|
|
## SmoothL1Loss | AKA Huber Loss
|
|
|
|
> [!NOTE]
|
|
> Called `Elastic Network` when used as an
|
|
> **objective function**
|
|
|
|
$$
|
|
L1(\vec{\bar{y}}, \vec{y}) = \begin{bmatrix}
|
|
l_1 \\
|
|
l_2 \\
|
|
... \\
|
|
l_n \\
|
|
\end{bmatrix}^T;\\
|
|
|
|
ln = \begin{cases}
|
|
\frac{0.5 \cdot (\bar{y}_n -y_n)^2}{\beta}
|
|
&\text{ if }
|
|
|\bar{y}_n -y_n| < \beta \\
|
|
|
|
|\bar{y}_n -y_n| - 0.5 \cdot \beta
|
|
&\text{ if }
|
|
|\bar{y}_n -y_n| \geq \beta
|
|
\end{cases}
|
|
$$
|
|
|
|
This behaves like [MSELoss](#mseloss--aka-l2) for
|
|
values **under a treshold** and [L1Loss](#l1loss)
|
|
**otherwise**.
|
|
|
|
It has the **advantage** of being **differentiable**
|
|
and is **very useful for `computer vision`**
|
|
|
|
As [MSELoss](#mseloss--aka-l2), it can be reduces into
|
|
a **scalar**
|
|
|
|
## L1 vs L2 For Image Classification
|
|
|
|
Usually with `L2` losses, we get a **blurrier** image as
|
|
opposed with `L1` loss. This comes from the fact that
|
|
`L2` averages all values and does not respect
|
|
`distances`.
|
|
|
|
Moreover, since `L1` takes the difference, this is
|
|
constant over **all values** and **does not
|
|
decrease towards $0$**
|
|
|
|
## NLLLoss[^NLLLoss]
|
|
|
|
This is basically the ***distance*** towards
|
|
real ***class tags***.
|
|
|
|
$$
|
|
NLLLoss(\vec{\bar{y}}, \vec{y}) = \begin{bmatrix}
|
|
l_1 \\
|
|
l_2 \\
|
|
... \\
|
|
l_n \\
|
|
\end{bmatrix}^T;\\
|
|
|
|
l_n = - w_n \cdot \bar{y}_{n, y_n}
|
|
$$
|
|
|
|
Even here there's the possibility to reduce the vector
|
|
to a **scalar**:
|
|
|
|
$$
|
|
NLLLoss(\vec{\bar{y}}, \vec{y}, mode) = \begin{cases}
|
|
\sum^N_{n=1} \frac{
|
|
l_n
|
|
}{
|
|
\sum^N_{n=1} w_n
|
|
} & \text{ if mode = "mean"}\\
|
|
\sum^N_{n=1} l_n & \text{ if mode = "sum"}
|
|
\end{cases}
|
|
$$
|
|
|
|
Technically speaking, in `Pytorch` you have the
|
|
possibility to ***exclude*** some `classes` during
|
|
training. Moreover it's possible to pass
|
|
`weights` for `classes`, **useful when dealing
|
|
with unbalanced training set**
|
|
|
|
> [!TIP]
|
|
>
|
|
> So, what's $\vec{\bar{y}}$?
|
|
>
|
|
> It's the `tensor` containing the probability of
|
|
> a `point` to belong to those `classes`.
|
|
>
|
|
> For example, let's say we have 10 `points` and 3
|
|
> `classes`, then $\vec{\bar{y}}_{p,c}$ is the
|
|
> **`probability` of `point` `p` belonging to `class`
|
|
> `c`**
|
|
>
|
|
> This is why we have
|
|
> $l_n = - w_n \cdot \bar{y}_{n, y_n}$.
|
|
> In fact, we take the error over the
|
|
> **actual `class tag` of that `point`**.
|
|
>
|
|
> To get a clear idea, check this website[^NLLLoss]
|
|
|
|
<!-- Comment to suppress linter -->
|
|
|
|
> [!WARNING]
|
|
>
|
|
> Technically speaking the `input` data should come
|
|
> from a `LogLikelihood` like
|
|
> [LogSoftmax](./../3-Activation-Functions/INDEX.md#logsoftmax).
|
|
> However this is not enforced by `Pytorch`
|
|
|
|
## CrossEntropyLoss[^Anelli-CEL]
|
|
|
|
$$
|
|
CrossEntropyLoss(\vec{\bar{y}}, \vec{y}) = \begin{bmatrix}
|
|
l_1 \\
|
|
l_2 \\
|
|
... \\
|
|
l_n \\
|
|
\end{bmatrix}^T;\\
|
|
|
|
l_n = - w_n \cdot \ln\left(
|
|
\frac{
|
|
e^{\bar{y}_{n, y_n}}
|
|
}{
|
|
\sum_c e^{\bar{y}_{n, y_c}}
|
|
}
|
|
\right)
|
|
$$
|
|
|
|
Even here there's the possibility to reduce the vector
|
|
to a **scalar**:
|
|
|
|
$$
|
|
CrossEntropyLoss(\vec{\bar{y}}, \vec{y}, mode) = \begin{cases}
|
|
\sum^N_{n=1} \frac{
|
|
l_n
|
|
}{
|
|
\sum^N_{n=1} w_n
|
|
} & \text{ if mode = "mean"}\\
|
|
\sum^N_{n=1} l_n & \text{ if mode = "sum"}
|
|
\end{cases}
|
|
$$
|
|
|
|
> [!NOTE]
|
|
>
|
|
> This is basically a **good version** of
|
|
> [NLLLoss](#nllloss)
|
|
|
|
## AdaptiveLogSoftmaxWithLoss
|
|
|
|
## BCELoss | AKA Binary Cross Entropy Loss
|
|
|
|
## KLDivLoss | AKA Kullback-Leibler Divergence Loss
|
|
|
|
## BCEWithLogitsLoss
|
|
|
|
## HingeEmbeddingLoss
|
|
|
|
## MarginRankingLoss
|
|
|
|
## TripletMarginLoss
|
|
|
|
## SoftMarginLoss
|
|
|
|
## MultiLabelMarginLoss
|
|
|
|
## CosineEmbeddingLoss
|
|
|
|
[^NLLLoss]: [Remy Lau | Towards Data Science | 4th April 2025](https://towardsdatascience.com/cross-entropy-negative-log-likelihood-and-all-that-jazz-47a95bd2e81/)
|
|
|
|
[^Anelli-CEL]: Anelli | Deep Learning PDF 4 pg. 11
|